PinBoard wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> PinBoard wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> snip OP
>>>
>>> This is a straw man argument.
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
> It setup a false position comparing DVD and TV's to equate meat and non
> meat foods. A straw man.

No. First of all, it isn't a false comparison; the
comparison is apt. Secondly, you clearly don't know
what a straw man argument is. It is when you attribute
a position to your opponent that he doesn't hold, in
order to knock it down. That's not what I did. I made
an apt comparison. "vegans" fatuously wish to pretend
that what people want is just "food", undifferentiated.
I have shown that that is *like* saying people want
"electronic entertainment media", undifferentiated.
But we know that's wrong. Radio programs and
television programs are two different entertainment
vehicles. At some level, they are substitutable, but
they are not perfectly substitutable. If you take away
an hour of TV programming from someone and give him an
hour of radio programming in its place, he won't
consider himself as well off.


>
>> "vegans" make this bogus "inefficiency" argument all the time. Here's
>> an example of it in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian from just yesterday:
>>
>> The truth can no longer be dodged. Livestock farming
>> gobbles up agricultural land, water and energy that
>> could far more efficiently be devoted to growing
>> food for people to eat directly. Meat, therefore,
>> is a rich person's food and those who consume it -
>> whether in India, Denmark or England - cause
>> malnourishment and death among the world's poorest
>> people.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...87ba15c70a9667
>>
>>
>>
>> This vegetarian extremist site,
>> http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/tomeat.html, is one of dozens or
>> even hundreds that belabor the same *wrong* point. This claim of
>> "inefficiency" reveals massive ignorance of what "efficient" means.
>>
>>
>
> As I wrote "..it would seem reasonable to raise the issue of relative
> efficiency".

Except it's not reasonable at all, because you're still
trying to say that undifferentiated food calories are
what people want to consume, and that's false.

In fact, physical output isn't even the right measure
of efficiency at all; the correct thing to look at is
value. Say I have a hectare of land, and on it I can
grow wheat that will cost me $500 to raise (including
the imputed rent of the land), and which (for a stated
yield) I can sell for $600, so I realize a 20% return
on my investment. Now let's say I could have used that
same hectare of land to raise cattle, and it will cost
me $1000 (land rental, feed, water, fencing, etc.) but
I can sell the beef for $1300, or a 30% return. It
DOES NOT MATTER if the amount of beef produce will
"only" feed 50 people, while the amount of wheat I
could have produced would feed 100 people; the fact is
that those prices tell me people value beef more highly
than wheat, and in terms of value produced, it is more
efficient to produce the beef.


>>> If you want something to play DVD's - you'd buy a DVD player. If you
>>> wanted to watch TV - you'd buy a TV. Two different items with two
>>> different functions. The choice is FUNCTIONAL.
>>
>> If I were to argue as the people who wrongly make this bogus
>> "inefficiency" argument, I would say that DVD players and television
>> receivers both supply undifferentiated "electronic entertainment".
>> Your point about different functionality applies equally well to
>> animal and vegetable sources of nutrition: meat provides a different
>> function to the consumer than vegetables.
>
> You must be able to see that this is a very weak argument. - No one goes
> out to purchase "electronic entertainment" per se, but they do go out to
> get "food".

No, that's utterly false. People do *not* wish to
consume just "food", without regard to the components
of it. They want to consume *particular* foods.

Similarly, there's a category of goods in the national
accounts called "consumer durables", which includes
refrigerators, washing machines, dryers, home
electronics and more. If a given factory could produce
twice as many washing machines as it could
refrigerators, it would be insane to suggest, "Well,
washing machines are more 'efficient' that
refrigerators, and a consumer durable is a consumer
durable, so no more refrigerators." But that's the
equivalent of what you're proposing with food.


>>> If you want to eat - you eat food.
>>
>> No, that's completely wrong. Different foods are not the same in the
>> personal utility calculations of consumers. NO ONE thinks, "I just
>> want basic calories and protein, and I don't care what form they're in."
>
> Ask some one like this person, to dispel that assumption:
>
> http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/od...arving-boy.jpg

That kid is obviously going to be less picky than
someone who is usually better fed, but even that boy is
not overall indifferent between different types of
nutritionally equivalent food.


>>> Food has the same function; to nourish. The choice is NOT FUNCTIONAL.
>>> (In many cases, it's an aesthetic choice).
>>
>> The choice *is* functional: the function of consuming the thing you
>> want.
>
> Weak semantics.

No, it isn't weak at all. What is utterly weak is your
belief that consumers are indifferent among different
types of food.


>>> If there's a non-functional choice of the item being discussed (be it
>>> food or shirts) then it would seem reasonable to raise the issue of
>>> relative efficiency).
>>
>> The functional choice is there. You just want to ignore it for
>> ideological reasons.
>
> I understand the different functions, and hence choices; it is you that
> are ignoring them, or more correctly, dismissing them.

No, that would be you. A serving of chicken has a
different function to a consumer than does a serving of
potatoes.